Who's lying about Saddam's terrorist links?

CNN and the WSJ draw wildly divergent conclusions from the same Pentagon report.

Presented for your approval, an abject lesson in reading between the lines.

The Wall Street Journal says a recent Pentagon report confirms Saddam's link to terrorism, and that the media is covering-up:

Saddam's Terror Links: "...few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that... Bush... invented a connection between Saddam... and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions... even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less... true...

...these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that... Saddam... presented no threat to the U.S. [They] buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one -- which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum."

So the Journal maintains that there is a vast media conspiracy to hide 'the truth'. We've certainly heard such claims before. But also claiming that McCain and Bush are in on the fix? That's a new one on us.

Here's Think Progress' headline:

'WSJ defends discredited claims of Saddam-al Qaeda ‘collaboration.’

In support of its position, Think Progress links (twice, oddly) this CNN article:

'Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says'

This appears to be a direct contradiction, between two major news sources, on the very same report. Let's look further.

WSJ: "On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East..."

CNN: "The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon."

So: Who is lying?

Turns out, both are shading the truth. Both are also telling the truth.

Let's start where they actually agree: 'There was no 'smoking gun' linking al Qaeda and Saddam'.

CNN: "The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun"...

WSJ: "It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation."

What's telling is where these statements are placed in each account. For CNN, it's the second sentence, and it sets the tone of the piece. The WSJ buries theirs more than halfway through their piece.

Setting the tone for the Journal's piece was the conclusion from the report's authors:

"The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power"

The Journal wants very much to suggest (but stops short of actually stating) that "Saddam's Terrorist Links" are somehow equivalent or related to 9/11 (al Qaeda) links. In fact, no actual links were found. In this regard, CNN was more straightforward than the Journal.

Note also that the Journal's lead quote from the report does not actually conclude that Saddam exported terrorism. It merely says Saddam had THE OPPORTUNITY to export terrorism.

In examining the Journal's editorial, the frustrations of its author are palpable. Not only is the media covering-up, but the Bush Administration 'inexplicably' has not pressed the advantage the report presumably offers. Nor does McCain show any desire to run with this ball. Good Lord, are they all in cahoots?

Of course, the real reason for Bush and McCain's relative silence is that the report actually offers no clear advantage for them. The WSJ editorial writer, who is not named, badly wants a report that he did not quite get. McCain and Bush, seeing that the report offers them no compelling advantage (they know this will just mire them in the same old muck), have moved on to greener fields.

So – CNN was right and the WSJ was wrong, right? Not exactly.

It is true that the report is not nearly as clear-cut and compelling as the Journal, in its rarefied editorial atmosphere, believes and wants it to be. But there is little argument that Saddam did commit acts of terror against his own people. Given his history of past aggression against his neighbors, there is no reason to believe that he would not have encouraged or sponsored acts against the US given the motivation or incentive.

And, al Qaeda aside, CNN admits the report did conclude that Saddam supported outside terrorists:

"The documents cited in the report do reveal that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and terrorist activities inside and outside Iraq." But CNN insists that these terrorists were used to support Saddam within his own country, and the report does not state otherwise.

CNN is technically correct, which some are insisting is "the best kind of correct". But others are concerned that, long before we found a universally satisfactory 'smoking gun' in the Middle East, there's a good chance we would have found some more 'smoking cities' here at home.

Like so many facts and stories from Iraq, this report will be used to bludgeon one side or the other, rather than to help achieve clarity. Wars are not known for fostering clarity. We can only hope for that in a generation, or three.

There are excerpts from the Pentagon report in this 5-page PDF.

RELATED: Interesting if true - 'Report on Sept. 6 strike to show Saddam transferred WMDs to Syria'